Complaints: Mechanisms for prisoner participation?
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14773708221094271 |
| Author | Rebecca Banwell-Moore,Philippa Tomczak |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Complaints: Mechanisms
for prisoner participation?
Rebecca Banwell-Moore
and Philippa Tomczak
University of Nottingham, UK
Abstract
In prisons, participatory mechanisms can foster important outcomes including fairness, legitimacy
and dignity. Complaints are one significant (symbolic) mechanism facilitating prisoner participation.
Ombud institutions/Ombudsmen handle complaints externally, providing unelected accountability
mechanisms and overseeing prisons around the world. A fair complaints process can stimulate
prisoner voice, agency and rights protection, potentially averting self-harm and violence, and facili-
tating systemic improvements. However, complaints mechanisms are little studied. Addressing this
gap, we: i) contextualise discussion by demonstrating that prisoners’actions have directly shaped
complaints mechanisms available today; ii) outline prison complaints mechanisms in the case study
jurisdiction of England and Wales; and iii) provide a critical review of literature to assess whether
prison complaints systems are, in practice, participatory, inclusive and fair? We conclude that com-
plaints mechanisms hold clear potential to enhance prison legitimacy, facilitate prisoner engage-
ment and agency, and improve wellbeing and safety. However, myriad barriers prevent
prisoners from participating in complaints processes, including culture, fear, accessibility, timeli-
ness, emotional repression, and bureaucracy. The process of complaining and experiences of
these barriers are uneven across different groups of prisoners. Our article provides a springboard
for future empirical research.
Keywords
prisoner participation, complaints, legitimacy, procedural fairness, dignity, agency
Introduction
Participation is considered central to realising more democratic, sustainable and respon-
sive public services (Bovaird, 2007), and can foster important outcomes including
Corresponding author:
Rebecca Banwell-Moore, University of Nottingham, UK.
Email: Rebecca.banwell-moore@nottingham.ac.uk
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2023, Vol. 20(6) 1878–1898
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14773708221094271
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
fairness, legitimacy and dignity within the criminal justice system and amongst indivi-
duals detained in custody (Skinns et al., 2020; Tyler, 2006). In law, meaningful partici-
pation requires adequate and timely information and an opportunity to be heard, forming
a prerequisite for the legitimate authority of action, whilst denials of the right to partici-
pation inflict ‘moral harm’and injustice (Solum, 2004: 299). In political theory, demo-
cratic optimist perspectives emphasise the hope and possibility of participatory
democracy/rule by participation directing state institutions towards greater democracy
and the public good (Dzur, 2012). Social scientists note that citizens around the world
are demanding more participation and greater power (Cichowski, 2006). Arnstein’s
(2019) ‘ladder of citizen participation’illustrates that participation ranges from tokenistic
empty rituals for example being informed, consulted and placated up to legitimate forms
of participation which devolve power through partnership, delegation and citizen control.
Legitimate participation enables ‘the have-nots [to] join in determining how information
is shared, goals and policies are set […] and can induce significant social reform’
(Arnstein, 2019: 24). In this article, we examine complaints processes as a (potential)
mechanism for prisoner participation.
Prisons are closed systems of power relations (Sparks and Bottoms, 1995) where
every aspect of life is heavily regulated and prisoners are dependent on staff for fulfil-
ment of their needs. Where government has exceptional authority, rights protections
‘must be a core preoccupation’(Sapers and Zinger, 2010: 1512). Indeed, European
Prison Rule 50 requires that prisoners ‘be allowed to discuss matters relating to the
general conditions of imprisonment with prison administrations and […] encouraged
to communicate with the prison authorities about these matters’(Council of Europe,
2006: 23). Some countries have enshrined prisoner participation in general prison
management within primary legislation (e.g., Belgium, Germany, and Spain)
(Bishop, 2006). Nevertheless, little scholarship examines how prisoners (do not) par-
ticipate through mechanisms that claim to protect their rights and citizenship
(Piacentini and Katz, 2017). Formal participatory mechanisms allow prisoners to
express their views on issues of relevance for their collective life (Bishop, 2006).
Examples of formal participatory mechanisms include legal challenges, complaints,
prison councils and lived experience networks (often run by voluntary/non-profitorga-
nisations). Complaints are one significant (symbolic) mechanism facilitating prisoner
participation; providing prisoners with a potential ‘lever by which to shift conditions’
(Mika and Thomas, 1988: 57).
Mechanisms for prisoner participation do not simply emerge. Examining participa-
tory mechanisms without considering reasons for their introduction and (lack of) usage
reproduces the myth of rights: that all victims are assured of their day in court and judi-
cially/ bureaucratically affirmed rights are self-implementing social justice instruments
(Scheingold, 1974). In fact, prisoners’actions have directly shaped complaints pro-
cesses available today as some Ombud institutions were established in response to
prisoner riots. The establishment of Canada’sOffice of the Correctional Investigator
(Federal Prison Ombudsman) in 1973 resulted from the exceptionally ‘bloody’riots
at Kingston Penitentiary in 1971 and subsequent staff retaliations towards rioters
transferred to Millhaven Penitentiary (Sapers and Zinger, 2010: 1517–8). In
Banwell-Moore and Tomczak 1879
To continue reading
Request your trial